Bishop & Malco, Inc

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF BISHOP & MALCO, I:\C., DOING BUSINESS AS WALKER' CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE C01IMISSION AND THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket C-1618. Complaint, Nov. 19GB-Decision, Nov. 1969 Consent order requiring a Long Beach, Calif. , department store to cease falsely advertising, deceptively invoicing and misbranding its fur products.

COMPLAI Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fnr Products Labeling Act, and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe that Bishop & :YIalco, Inc., a corporation doing business as Walker, hereinafter referred to as respondent has violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Fur Products Labeling Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows: PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent Bishop & :YIalco, Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. The said corporation does business as Walker Respondent operates a department store and retails various commodities including fur products. The offce and principal place of business is located at 401 Pine Avenne, Long Beach, California.

PAR. 2. Respondent is now and for some time last past has been engaged in the introduction into commerce, and in the sale WALKER 571 570 Complaint advertising, and offering for sale in commerce, and in the transportation and distribution in commerce, of fur products; and has sold, advertised, offered for sale, transported and distributed fur products which have been made in whole or in part of furs which have been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms ((commerce fur" and IfIur product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in that they were not labeled as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Fnr Products Labeling Act and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regnlations promnlgated thereunder.

Among such misbranded fur products, but not limited thereto were fur products with labels which failed to show the true anima! name of the fur used in such fur products. PAR. 1. Certain of said fur products were misbranded in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not labeled in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects:

(a) The term "natural" was not used on labels to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

(b) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth in handwriting on labels, in violation of Rule 29 (b) of said Rules and Regulations. (c) Information required under Section 4(2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth in the required seqncnce, in violation of Rule 30 of said Rules and Regulations. PAR. 5. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced by the respondent in that they were not invoiced as required by Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under such Act. Among such falsely and deceptively invoiced fur products, but not limited thereto, were fur products covered by invoices which failed:

1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in such fur products.

Complaint 76 F.

2. To disclose that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 6. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively invoiced in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that they were not invoiced in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) Information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was set forth on invoices in abbreviated form in violation of Rule 4 of said Rules and Regulations. (b) The term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" was not set forth on invoices in the manner required by law, in violation of Rule 9 of said Rules and Regulations.

(c) The term "natural" was not used on invoices to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of said Rules and Regulations.

PAR. 7. Certain of said fur products were falsely and deceptively advertised in violation of the Fur Prod nets Labeling Act in that certain advertisements intended to aid, promote and assist directly or indirectly, in the sale and offering for sale of such fnr products were not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (a) of the said Act.

Among and included in the aforesaid advertisements but not limited thereto, were advertisements of respondent which appeared in issues of the Independent Press Telegram, a newspaper published in the city of Long Beach, State of California and having a wide circulation in California and in other States of the United States.

Among such false and deceptive advertisements, but not limited thereto, were advertisements which failed: 1. To show the true animal name of the fur used in such fur products.

2. To show that the fur contained in the fur products was bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored, when such was the fact.

PAR. 8. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products in vio- WALKER 573 570 Complaint lation of the Fur Products Labeling Act in that the said fur products were not advertised in accordance with the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in the following respects: (a) The term "natural" was not used to describe fur products which were not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed, or otherwise artificiaIly colored, in violation of Rule 19 (g) of the said Rules and Regulations.

(b) The disclosure that fur products were composed in whole or in part of paws, tails, belles, sides, flanks, gi1s, ears, throats heads, scrap pieces or waste fur was not made, as required, in violation of Rule 20 of the said Rules and Regulations. (c) Information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder was not set forth separately with respect to each section of fur products composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs, in violation of Rule 36 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

(d) AIl parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder were not set forth in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other, in violation of Rule 38 (a) of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations. PAR. 9. By means of the aforesaid advertisements and others of similar import and meaning not specifically referred to herein respondent falsely and deceptively advertised fur products, in violation of Section 5 (a) (5) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rule 44 (a) of the Rules and Regulations. In the aforesaid advertisements, fur products were offered for sale by the respondent at prices designated as being "Below Wholesale Cost." By means of the aforesaid respondent represented that the fur products were being offered to the consuming public at prices which were less than the prices paid by the respondent in acquiring the said fur products and that savings were afforded to the purchasers of said products. In truth and in fact, the designated prices were not Below Wholesale Cost" but, in fact, were in excess of the prices paid for the fur products by the respondent and savings were not afforded to the purchasers thereof, as represented. PAR. 10. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondent, as herein alleged, are in violation of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rnles and Regulations promulgated thereunder and constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive Decision and Order 76 F.

acts and practices in commerce under the Ferleral Trade Commission Act.

DECISION A:-D ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondent named in the caption hereof, and the respondent having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Cummission for its consideration and ,vhieh, if issued by the Commission, would charge respondent with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Fur Products .Labeling Act; and The respondent and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement nnt.i:ining a consent order, an admission by the respondent of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settle ment purposes only and does not constitute an admjssion by rcsponrlent that the law has be.en violated as alleged in such eomp19.int, flld waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Hnles; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that the respondent has violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent Bishop & Maico, Inc. , is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California with its offce and principal place of business located at 401 Pine Avenue, Long Beach, California. 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondent and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordered That respondent Bishop & :.1a1co, Inc., a corporation, doing business as \Valker s or under any other name or WALKER 575 570 Deeision and Order names, and its om('el's representatives, agents and employees, directly or throug:' any corporate or other device, in connection ''with the introduction into commerce, or the sale, advertising, offering for sale, transportation 01' distribution, of any fur product; or in connection with the sale, advertising, offering for sale transportation or distribution, of any fnr product which is made in whole or in part of fur which has been shipped and received in commerce, as the terms ((commerce fur" and Hfuy product" are defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. JVisbranding any fur product by:

1. Failing to ai-fix a label to such fur product showing in words and in figures plainly legible an of the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required (0 he disclosed on a label under the FUl' Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regnlations promulgated thereunder to describe such fnr product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or otherwise al"ificial1y coJol'ed.

3. Setting forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regnlations promnlgated thereunder in handwriting on a label affxed to such fm product.

4. Failng to set forth information required under Section 4 (2) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder on a label in the sequence required by Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules and Regulations.

B. Falsely 01' deceptively invoicing any fur product by: 1. Failing to furnish an invoice as the term "invoice is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, showing in words and figures plainly legible aU the mformation required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act. 2. Setting forth information required under Section 5 (b) (1) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in abbreviated form on all invoice pertaining to such fut product. Decision and Order 76 F.

3. Failing to set forth the term "Dyed Mouton Lamb" in the manner required where an election is made to use that term instead of the words "Dyed Lamb. 4. Failing to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed on an invoice under the Fur Products Labeling Act and Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fnr product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed, or otherwise artificially colored. C. Falsely or deceptively advertising any fur product through the use of any advertisement, representation, public announcement or notice which is intended to aid, promote or assist, directly or indirectly, in the sale, or offering for sale of any such fur product, and which:

1. Fails to set forth in words and figures plainly legible all the information required to be disclosed by each of the subsections of Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act.

2. Fails to set forth the term "natural" as part of the information required to be disclosed in advertisements under the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder to describe such fur product which is not pointed, bleached, dyed, tipdyed or otherwise artificially colored.

3. Fails to disclose that such fur product is composed in whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bel1es sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces or waste fur.

4. Fails to separately set forth in advertisements relating to such fur product composed of two or more sections containing different animal furs the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder with respect to the fur comprising each section.

5. Fails to set forth all parts of the information required under Section 5 (a) of the Fur Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in type of equal size and conspicuousness and in close proximity with each other.

WALKER 577 570 Decision and Order 6. Falsely and deceptively represents, directly or by implication, by means of the phrase "Below Wholesale Cost" or any other phrase, term or word of similar import or meaning that such fur product is being offered for sale at less than the price paid for the product by the respondent.

7. Falsely or deceptively represents that savings are afforded to the purchaser of such fur product or misrepresents in any manner the amount of savings afforded to the purchaser of such fur product.

shall It is further ordered That the respondent corporation forthwith distribute a copy of this order to each of its operating divisions.

It iB further ordered That the respondent herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon it of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which it has complied with this order.